How can we be happy without God?

[prodigalson2011]

He who doesn’t know himself, knows nothing. Despair and hope can exist at the same time. There are moments in which we despair and there are moments in which we hope. Whoever experiences a “spiritual drought” is in despair. Despair is not a sin. It is a perception that can develop our relationship with God. If it brings us to God, what sin have we committed by our despair? That’s just an example of the working of despair. Do you say I’ve come to God through my sin (despair)? No one comes to God through sin. Rather, we come to God through a sinless path.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:*

Despair, ethically regarded, is the voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for that end. It is not a passive state of mind: on the contrary it involves a positive act of the will by which a person deliberately gives over any expectation of ever reaching eternal life…Despair as such and as distinguished from a certain difference, sinking of the heart, or overweening dread is always a mortal sin. .*

What you are describing is not despair.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If hope is a virtue, its opposite, despair, must be a sin. But sins can be overcome, as St. Augustine could tell you. The sin that cannot be overcome is “unyielding despair,” the sin that most often leads to suicide and damnation.

Russell offers nothing in place of unyielding despair. He even seems to glorify it as a good, as a truth that must be embraced even though it is the enemy of mankind. Such an attitude is consistent with unyielding despair. It would be interesting to know where Russell got his conviction that truth is our enemy rather than our friend, while at the same time through this truth can “the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

This seems like a non sequitur that no distinguished philosopher of Russell’s rank should have been capable. The only conclusion I can draw is that Russell is letting his emotion (unyielding despair) overcome his logic.

 

[shoe]

It doesn’t seem to me that “unyielding despair” is a very “firm foundation” on which to build a worldview. And what in the world would even inspire a person to build a life around despair in the first place? I think Mr. Bertrand Russell might be saying, but without realizing it, that life has no hope without God, only despair.

“They that hope in the LORD will renew their strength, they will soar on eagles’ wings; They will run and not grow weary, walk and not grow faint” (Isaiah 40:31).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As for those who insist they are happy without God, in what would their happiness consist?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

"Charlemagne II:

Will someone explain to me how the last sentence is a rational conclusion to what comes before it?

You title asks a question quite apart from this–by identifying that which we delight in, and then setting course! “Captain of our own destiny” seems scary at first. All at once you’re faced with choosing a destination, figuring out how to pilot your boat, and that pesky unpredictable weather. But soon enough you get your sea legs and you’re singing Yo Ho Ho! as you merrily travel on your way along an exciting path to worthy destinations.

in what would their happiness consist?

What do I delight in? Teaching children. Making love to a beautiful woman. Going on grand adventures, in the true meaning of the term, where there’s risk and rewad! Learning more about the world and its peoples and its foods and its songs and its art and its stories. That’s some of it. There’s certainly more! What makes me happy may not make you happy. All of Earth’s people are unique.
Charlmagne:

insist

What an odd word-choice! As if folks pretended to be happy to tempt you! You can lead a horse to water. But to actually believe, or not, the choice is yours!

 

[prodigalson2011]

You title asks a question quite apart from this–by identifying that which we delight in, and then setting course! “Captain of our own destiny” seems scary at first. All at once you’re faced with choosing a destination, figuring out how to pilot your boat, and that pesky unpredictable weather. But soon enough you get your sea legs and you’re singing Yo Ho Ho! as you merrily travel on your way along an exciting path to worthy destinations.

What do I delight in? Teaching children. Making love to a beautiful woman. Going on grand adventures, in the true meaning of the term, where there’s risk and rewad! Learning more about the world and its peoples and its foods and its songs and its art and its stories. That’s some of it. There’s certainly more! What makes me happy may not make you happy. All of Earth’s people are unique.

What an odd word-choice! As if folks pretended to be happy to tempt you! You can lead a horse to water. But to actually believe, or not, the choice is yours!

I can’t help but note that your criteria of happiness are contingent upon some very unstable life factors. The question in the thread title is addressed we, not you.
The answer you’ve given is entirely inapplicable to the majority of the human race, who haven’t the time or resources to “go on grand adventures.” It sounds to me like you speak from a place of privilege. So, essentially, your answer is, “By being born into a life of privilege.”

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

I can’t help but note that your criteria of happiness are contingent upon some very unstable life factors. The question in the thread title is addressed we, not you.
The answer you’ve given is entirely inapplicable to the majority of the human race, who haven’t the time or resources to “go on grand adventures.” It sounds to me like you speak from a place of privilege. So, essentially, your answer is, “By being born into a life of privilege.”

I live in America, if that’s what you mean by a life of privilege. There are many adventures to be had on a shoe-string budget, and people find time for what matters to them. I know someone who, right out of high school, set about touring the world. She took jobs in many countries, alternatively teaching English–a skill most forum members presumably have–and acting as a backpacking/kayaking guide. She’s unique, but not that unique. I know several people who took similar paths. There are many hostels around the world, and renting couches is becoming a more common way to bunk for less.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I live in America, if that’s what you mean by a life of privilege. There are many adventures to be had on a shoe-string budget, and people find time for what matters to them. I know someone who, right out of high school, set about touring the world. She took jobs in many countries, alternatively teaching English–a skill most forum members presumably have–and acting as a backpacking/kayaking guide. She’s unique, but not that unique. I know several people who took similar paths. There are many hostels around the world, and renting couches is becoming a more common way to bunk for less.

Yes, most Americans (myself included, and I come from a skin-of-the-teeth, blue collar family) are very privileged.

I suppose I would ask, how would you answer this question for the socially disabled, the homeless, the poor and starving, the destitute in general? Those who lack the means mentally, spiritually or physically to live life in a hedonistic wonderland? How can they find happiness? I think God has an answer that you don’t. Just sayin.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Yes, most Americans (myself included, and I come from a skin-of-the-teeth, blue collar family) are very privileged. I suppose I would ask, how would you answer this question for…

I’ve answered the question for “me” and “we” (mostly English-speakers with the means to obtain passports or other travel papers) and that’s as far as I intend to go. The same applies to some but not all in the categories you named in America. It’s hard to truly starve here, although winters can be brutal. The disabled have more opportunities than in many countries. As far as other corners of the world, I donate when there’s a major disaster, but otherwise focus locally.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’ve answered the question for “me” and “we” (mostly English-speakers with the means to obtain passports or other travel papers) and that’s as far as I intend to go. The same applies to some but not all in the categories you named in America. It’s hard to truly starve here, although winters can be brutal. The disabled have more opportunities than in many countries. As far as other corners of the world, I donate when there’s a major disaster, but otherwise focus locally.

Well… I guess I’ll leave well enough alone.

 

[Perplexity]

The first thing I’d like to say is atheism doesn’t even really imply there’s no afterlife. It simply says theism is false. So, I see no reason to think atheism means this life is the only chance we get. I think the confusion occurs when naturalism is conflated with atheism.

As far as happiness goes, I can’t help but look at happiness like taste. Some folks enjoy the taste of blue cheese, I don’t. There’s no fact of the matter of whether blue cheese should taste good or bad and we’d be far out of step to suggest there is in everyday conversation.

I think it’s the same with happiness. Russell may very well find those factors depressing etc. That’s just a description of his tastes. My happiness consists in my other half, and her happiness. I’ve seen several descriptions of happiness so far, to say they’re wrong, to me, is to tell someone who likes blue cheese that they’re wrong: blue cheese shouldn’t taste good, so they’ve gone astray somewhere.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The first thing I’d like to say is atheism doesn’t even really imply there’s no afterlife. It simply says theism is false. So, I see no reason to think atheism means this life is the only chance we get. I think the confusion occurs when naturalism is conflated with atheism.

As far as happiness goes, I can’t help but look at happiness like taste. Some folks enjoy the taste of blue cheese, I don’t. There’s no fact of the matter of whether blue cheese should taste good or bad and we’d be far out of step to suggest there is in everyday conversation.

I think it’s the same with happiness. Russell may very well find those factors depressing etc. That’s just a description of his tastes. My happiness consists in my other half, and her happiness. I’ve seen several descriptions of happiness so far, to say they’re wrong, to me, is to tell someone who likes blue cheese that they’re wrong: blue cheese shouldn’t taste good, so they’ve gone astray somewhere.

Ya know, not saying it’s not plausible, but you are the first person I’ve ever heard suggest a separation between atheism and naturalism. Interesting thought.

The way I look at happiness in this context is as an absolute: how can we find a peace that can’t be shaken? And I think Russell hits the nail on the head, in the case of atheism. In the examples given by LifeIsAbsurd and yourself, that happiness can be taken away in one way or another. I’ve no doubt these things grant a degree of happiness and contentment, but I’m inclined to think the OP meant the former kind. I could be mistaken, and he may mean any happiness at all. Care to clarify OP?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

The way I look at happiness in this context is as an absolute: how can we find a peace that can’t be shaken? In the examples given by LifeIsAbsurd and yourself, that happiness can be taken away in one way or another.

I have so many sources of happiness, I’m not too vulnerable to a single misfortune. But if, one day, an accident took away my kids and partner and I lost my mobility in one swipe, I’d certainly be unhappy for a spell! Not many would be “unshakeably happy” the day or week or month something like that happened! It takes time to recover from a major tragedy and to adapt to the new life before you.

I would adapt. Humans are incredible like that! Once, long ago, I was a published writer. And I do enjoy stories and music!

 

[tonyrey]

But to actually believe, or not, the choice is yours!

How can we have the power of choice if we are biological machines?

 

[Pitcharan]

I have so many sources of happiness, I’m not too vulnerable to a single misfortune. But if, one day, an accident took away my kids and partner and I lost my mobility in one swipe, I’d certainly be unhappy for a spell! Not many would be “unshakeably happy” the day or week or month something like that happened! It takes time to recover from a major tragedy and to adapt to the new life before you.

I would adapt. Humans are incredible like that! Once, long ago, I was a published writer. And I do enjoy stories and music!

Not just humans, even animals adapt. Their ability to adapt is a gift from God.

Happiness is not just delight of the senses. There is also a higher variety; eg. the joy that we experience when we ‘save a life’ or ‘reach out to help a needy person’. This peaceful variety of joy cannot be taken away and has an imperishable effect unlike ‘the delight of the sense’

 

[tonyrey]

Not just humans, even animals adapt. Their ability to adapt is a gift from God.

Happiness is not just delight of the senses. There is also a higher variety; eg. the joy that we experience when we ‘save a life’ or ‘reach out to help a needy person’. This peaceful variety of joy cannot be taken away and has an imperishable effect unlike ‘the delight of the sense’

It’s very refreshing to come across a more positive and spiritual view of life - but that is to be expected in the subcontinent!

 

[Sair]

Bertrand Russell from “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

Will someone explain to me how the last sentence is a rational conclusion to what comes before it?

You strip away the illusions and work with what you have. What is a life worth if it is built on delusions of grandeur? One must start from a realistic foundation in order to construct a concept of what our lives are really worth.

As a counter to the idea that we should despair at everything we’re not, I’ll quote Richard Dawkins:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that Russell’s view of reality is true. How do you **know **what we are?

As a counter to the idea that we should despair at **everything we’re not…
**

A true disciple of dogmatic Dawkins!

**…**I’ll quote Richard Dawkins:
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”

Typical Dawkinsian dogmatism - with his inexplicably privileged insight into the nature of reality!

 

[prodigalson2011]

You strip away the illusions and work with what you have. What is a life worth if it is built on delusions of grandeur? One must start from a realistic foundation in order to construct a concept of what our lives are really worth.

As a counter to the idea that we should despair at everything we’re not, I’ll quote Richard Dawkins:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”

So Dawkins believes in ghosts now?
This is typically inconsistent of him. According to his naturalistic worldview, everything is essentially predetermined, as though we are in the midst of an astronomical chain of dominos, yet he has the nerve to speak of potential persons. That’s not to mention that the argument in itself is irrelevant and nonsensical, from any perspective. “Most people are never going to die, because they are never going to be born.” If the absurdity of that isn’t obvious to you, let me borrow that logic to demonstrate:
“Most cars are never going to run, because they’re never going to be built.”
“We know this because of the incredible amount of raw material in the world that will never be used to make cars. And that which is, could have been distributed in a trillion different ways.”
It’s meaningless nonsense.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dawkins said:

**“We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” **

Dawkins has confused potency with act. As philosophy this sentence alone deserves a grade of F.

Russell’s “unyielding despair” becomes Dawkins’ ungrateful despair.

What would he say to someone whose life was one of continuing misery and suffering, both physical and mental"

“How ungrateful of you to whine and pine for a better life in your illusory beyond! Just shut up and accept that you’re SOL.”